What happened to "episode" books?

[Therin of Andor]

I'd guess that they would be less likely to invest in an ongoing series than they would in a one off novel.

But people still ask, "What episodes do I need to see to understand all the nuances of this novel?"

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

I'd guess that they would be less likely to invest in an ongoing series than they would in a one off novel.

But people still ask, "What episodes do I need to see to understand all the nuances of this novel?"

But the episodes exist, are in the can, and at this moment in time, new ones aren't being made. There's a difference between novels referring to television episodes and referring to each other.

Besides, although my personal preferences are otherwise, I am not saying that internovel references will cease, just that the beginning, middle and end of a specific story will have to take place within the confines of one novel, not three, four or ten, as with less cash to spend, casual readers will be less likely to embark on a trilogy instead of take a chance on a single novel.

 

[Therin of Andor]

But the episodes exist, are in the can, and at this moment in time, new ones aren't being made. There's a difference between novels referring to television episodes and referring to each other.

It doesn't make sense for Pocket to aim at people in the demographic that is only willing to buy one book every now and then. They would, and do, aim at a wider audience, and thus the quality of the writing and hanging story threads might/does "sell" more titles.

as with less cash to spend, casual readers will be less likely to embark on a trilogy instead of take a chance on a single novel.

With less cash to spend, people go to public libraries. John Ordover found that a duology, sitting side by side in a shop, sold twice as many of each title than the one thick novel. In times of monetary tightness, people fall back on cheap forms of entertainment: MMPB books, and trips to the cinema.

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

a duology, sitting side by side in a shop

Which shop would that be then?

The last time I walked into a bookshop (not too many of them left. Endangered Species) there were two copies of the same Trek book, unceremoniously inserted into half a shelf of Star Wars books.

Casual readers aren't catered for anymore, those who walk into a shop, pick up a book, leaf through the first chapter and discover something new. It's all online now, where let's face it, you preach to the converted.

Trek XI might kickstart something, but the high street bookshops aren't there anymore to carry the momentum.

It's easier to stock a selection of single novels in a shop than an ongoing series, especially when that ongoing series exceeds the length of a single shelf.

As for libraries, the days that my local authority invest in a Trek novel is the day to order a marching band and ready a ticker-tape parade.

 

[JD]

I don't really see where single novels vs series really have that much of an impact on what the stores buy. Where I live they seem to just pretty much just stock whatever the newest stuff is, whether it's a series or standalone. In fact I'd be suprised if the people in charge even knew or cared what books were series or which were standalone (and I don't mean just Trek, I'm talking generally here.)

 

[Stevil2001]

But the episodes exist, are in the can, and at this moment in time, new ones aren't being made. There's a difference between novels referring to television episodes and referring to each other.

It doesn't make sense for Pocket to aim at people in the demographic that is only willing to buy one book every now and then. They would, and do, aim at a wider audience, and thus the quality of the writing and hanging story threads might/does "sell" more titles.

The "casual" buyer is the wider audience. There's far more people buying a book now and again than dedicated, collecting-all-books fanboys. Or at least there should be. Doctor Who has had a couple spinoff tie-in lines bought exclusively by the dedicated readers of the line (Faction Paradox, Time Hunter), and they all died because no one was buying them.

 

[Dr. M'benga]

I guess it's a holdover from watching serialized TV shows. I can't see how anyone could come in cold on BSG, for example, at this stage in the game and get one thousandth of the impact (or make ANY sense) out of it. If I decide to read a novel arc, I always start at the beginning.

But the point is, not all story arcs are anywhere near as serialized as BSG. A series like Titan is more like TNG, where each installment has a self-contained plot and situation and only the characters have developing arcs. You couldn't come in cold on BSG, no, but you could begin watching TNG in, say, the third or fourth season and not be lost.

I think I know that's true, intellectually, Christopher. I suppose what's really happening is that I like to feel like I was "there" when a character development or strategic event took place and not just see the fallout ("Batman punched out Guy? And I missed it?! God, I'm depressed.").

Titan is a great example of a "soft" arc series and I love it for it.

 

[William Leisner]

The "casual" buyer is the wider audience. There's far more people buying a book now and again than dedicated, collecting-all-books fanboys. Or at least there should be. Doctor Who has had a couple spinoff tie-in lines bought exclusively by the dedicated readers of the line (Faction Paradox, Time Hunter), and they all died because no one was buying them.

I know that's what is always said... but I really have to wonder, in this age when even the dedicated fanboys have trouble finding Trek books at their local booksellers, and brick-and-mortar shops are encouraging patrons to shop via web instead, how many "casual buyers" just happen to glimpse Patrick Stewart's face while browsing and pick up the book on a whim.

 

[Therin of Andor]

The "casual" buyer is the wider audience. There's far more people buying a book now and again than dedicated, collecting-all-books fanboys.

Exactly - which is why most novels are written so they can appear to be self-contained, but The Laughing Vulcan seems to be asking for a return to totally self-contained ST novels that reference neither each other, future titles, or episodes, just in case the potential buyers might be shy about buying something that will make them want to buy other books, or DVDs. He's told us before, he considers those slim novels of the 80s to be ST's glory days, but even those had numbers on them, a marketing attempt to coerce people to "collect them all". I don't see that moving to such a product does anything to increase reader numbers.

Every fiction story tends to have some plot threads that are never followed up. Not all of them are deliberate hooks by the writers and editors to make people start anticipating a sequel. (Not every plot thread in my life is ever followed up; if it was, I'd never sleep.)

But yeah, it's been a long while since Pocket has done a major marketing push on Star Trek novels to casual buyers. They've tended to rely on excerpts in "Star Trek Magazine" and online resources. I'm expecting that to change in the next few months, plus detecting a building of active interest from bookshop managers hoping to guage the success of the upcoming movie so they have sufficient stock of Trek to meet demand.

For the "collect 'em all" fanboys, Pocket doesn't have to waste too many marketing dollars, just keep the standard of writing up. However, that assumes the collectors are reading what they buy. As a teacher-librarian during the heady days of "Goosebumps", I know that over-anxious "collect 'em all" fanboys often don't read the books they collect. The death knell of "Goosebumps" came with the TV series spin-off. As soon as the TV series began airing, the bottom fell out of the parent book market. It seemed like now the blind collectors actually knew what the stories were like, they were no longer interested.

My local comic shop had a note on their website once, urging collectors to always read what they were buying, not just buy to sock away in sealed bags for investment purposes.

 

[Therin of Andor]

I'd be suprised if the people in charge even knew or cared what books were series or which were standalone (and I don't mean just Trek, I'm talking generally here.)

You can tell that when the books are shelved in random order - unless it's a store that goes by author surname.

 

[PaulSimpson]

But yeah, it's been a long while since Pocket has done a major marketing push on Star Trek novels to casual buyers. They've tended to rely on excerpts in "Star Trek Magazine" and online resources. I'm expecting that to change in the next few months, plus detecting a building of active interest from bookshop managers hoping to guage the success of the upcoming movie so they have sufficient stock of Trek to meet demand.

Why do you expect it to change?

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

Exactly - which is why most novels are written so they can appear to be self-contained, but The Laughing Vulcan seems to be asking for a return to totally self-contained ST novels that reference neither each other, future titles, or episodes, just in case the potential buyers might be shy about buying something that will make them want to buy other books, or DVDs.

Besides, although my personal preferences are otherwise, I am not saying that internovel references will cease, just that the beginning, middle and end of a specific story will have to take place within the confines of one novel, not three, four or ten, as with less cash to spend, casual readers will be less likely to embark on a trilogy instead of take a chance on a single novel.

Words in my mouth much?

 

[Geoff Thorne]

I was talking to some people the other day who used to read and enjoy Star Trek books but have long since moved on. They're comments boiled down to the fact that they miss novels that are based on events that are set during one of the series--even though the programs have been off the air for years.

They seem to resent the longer story arcs, whether they cross from one series to the next or are multi-book storylines (like Voyager's "String Theory"). They talk about picking up a Star Trek book at the bookstore, seeing the blurb about "After the events in the trilogy Destiny," and just putting the book back down--they don't want to have to be "caught up" on the backstory that has been developed in a series of previous books. And they don't like reading about "new" characters. They want to see the characters as they knew them on screen.

Does anyone else long for the old "numbered" books from years back where we could just enjoy a novel that "could have been" an episode?

I know I do.

Isn't there room for all sorts of stories?

Personally I was burnt out on Star Trek until someone told me about NEW FRONTIER and SNW. It was those books that reignited my love for Star Trek.

Some of the best Trek-related material I've enjoyed has been the "new" materal that comes from the books. In fact, lately, I'd say "nearly all."

And it's a delicte balance anyway. The canon material is there to be enjoyed and the primary focus of Star Trek is its filmed versions so the books must do the things that books do better than film in order to be worth producing IMO.

That means more complexity and more depth. It means events and locales that simply cannot be depicted in film for various reasons.

I, for one, would not be interested in writing or reading a novelization of one or even multiple Star Trek episodes because those episodes were not meant to be enjoyed as prose. And it takes an exceptional approach for a writer to get me interested in a novelization of a film.

But books like the VANGUARD series or A STITCH IN TIME, which wrap themselves around "current events" of a given series but show other things from unique perspectives, are successful, for me, precisely because of their ability to illuminate aspects of the Trek-verse the filmed series' will never show or attempt to show.

What the builders of the TITAN series (as opposed to me who only writes in the milieu) attempted to do was to bring back the feeling of "episode" and old school exploration in Star Trek while still keeping the idiosyncratic styles of the writers viable so that we could write "real" scifi books that were also Star Trek.

To me this is a Golden Era of Star Trek. There really is something for nearly everybody and all of it is pretty damned good.

 

[Thrawn]

And it's a delicte balance anyway. The canon material is there to be enjoyed and the primary focus of Star Trek is its filmed versions so the books must do the things that books do better than film in order to be worth producing IMO.

That means more complexity and more depth.

Quoted. For. Truth.


I am not in the market for could-have-been-episode books; I have episodes. I'm in the market for could-never-have-been-episodes-in-a-million-years books. That's what's interesting about books.

I understand some people wanting the tie-ins to resemble the original property as much as possible, but from my perspective, that just turns the entire thriving publishing line into an "almost as good as..." at best. This way, it becomes something new and much better. By and large, I enjoy the books these days way more than I enjoyed any of the shows on the air.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Words in my mouth much?

Pardon me, I must have dreamed all those threads in which you stated your favourite ST novels were the numbered, self-contained MMPBs of the 80s and early 90s.

Why do you expect it to change?

I don't expect excerpts in STM to change, just that the bookshop managers are mad if they don't start marking out vibrant ST sections to accompany JJ's movie premiere, as we saw them do in the early 80s, and again at the height of TNG's popularity. In Sydney, many bookshop chains back-ordered several copies of every ST novel in print, building up impressive ST nooks, in response to the high visibility of TNG in the media.

 

[Defcon]

^ But times have changed. Given the current financial climate I actually doubt that the book chains would be willing to bet too much money on the success of movie-franchise whose numbers have declined with every new film. Sure, they most likely will feature the Star Trek books they already have in stock more prominently, but I'm not so sure they will actually increase their stocks much.

 

[BillJ]

I'm finding myself more interested in the 22nd and 23rd century books now. Seems like the 24th century books have kind of left me behind.

I think that I find the 22nd/23rd century books more interesting because they're playing in known territory, fleshing out the universe with characters I like.

I don't think it's necessarily whether they're episodic, just 'Do I find them entertaining?'.

 

[Therin of Andor]

^ But times have changed. Given the current financial climate I actually doubt that the book chains would be willing to bet too much money on the success of movie-franchise whose numbers have declined with every new film.

The numbers won't decline with this one.

 

[BillJ]

^ But times have changed. Given the current financial climate I actually doubt that the book chains would be willing to bet too much money on the success of movie-franchise whose numbers have declined with every new film.

The numbers won't decline with this one.

But why order a ton of stuff for a movie that will be in the public's eye for approximately two months?

 

[Therin of Andor]

But why order a ton of stuff for a movie that will be in the public's eye for approximately two months?

Yeah. The shops would be smart to ignore the new movie, and hope it just goes away and stops bothering anyone.